They are no better or worse on average than other genres. These are the genres that we, as a culture, have decided to take seriously.

In crime films, it’s their own ambition in war films, it’s a faceless enemy, in westerns, it’s wide open spaces and evil ne’er do wells. The most tried and true “serious” movies are typically about men grappling with something. “Serious” movies don’t have to be macho, but they often are. Shakespeare in Love is about the societal sexism and gender roles, and it went up against one of the manliest movies ever made. The film’s story of a wealthy actress who pretends to be a man so she can play Juliet onstage is equal parts brilliant and ridiculous. It’s about love and the expectations placed on women in Elizabethan England. That’s not to say that Shakespeare in Love is just two hours of jokes. At least Titanic, which won Best Picture the year before, had the common sense to end with a couple hundred people freezing to death in the middle of the Atlantic - including our heartthrobby protagonist. Shakespeare in Love was treated as an undeserving award winner because it was an unabashed love story that didn’t even have the decency to coat itself in tragedy. The problem comes when you conflate tone with importance. Shakespeare in Love certainly is a lot lighter than Saving Private Ryan. By comparison, Shakespeare in Love felt like a bit of a lightweight.

An undeniably great war film, Saving Private Ryan was the serious, weighty picture that awards season.

It’s all about the movie Shakespeare in Love beat for Best Picture: Steven Spielberg’s Saving Private Ryan.

The reputation Shakespeare in Love has earned has almost nothing to do with the movie. It’s one of the biggest controversies in Oscars history. In the years since its release, it’s earned a reputation as an undeserved winner. It’s a comedy through and through, but it’s also pristine. Shakespeare in Love is a good, interesting movie. 20 years ago, Shakespeare in Love won Best Picture.

Shakespeare in love common sense media